Delhi District Court
Jagdeep Sharma vs Rahul Chaudhary on 27 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
CS DJ No. 2432/2017
CNR No. - DLCT01-009844-2017
Sh. Jagdeep Sharma
S/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma
R/o B-1751, Shastri Nagar.
Delhi- 110052 ........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Rahul Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Suresh Chaudhary
R/o Khasra No. 94/6, G-B-1,
Block-B, Burari,
Delhi- 110084
2. Sh. Jagdish Sharma
S/o Late Sh. S.L. Sharma
R/o B-1739, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi- 110052. .......Defendants
Date of Institution: 10.07.2017
Date of Judgment: 27.01.2026
CS DJ 2432/17 1 of 24
Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff initially filed this suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the sole defendant namely Sh. Rahul Chaudhary (now, defendant No. 1) with following prayer(s);
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-
a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declaring the sale deed registered vide registration No.5320 in Book No.1, Volume No.6246 on pages 55 to 61 registered on 10.06.2016 as null and void in respect of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. B-1739, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052;
b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby restraining the defendant, his agent, servant, nominees, etc. from creating third party interest in respect of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. B-1739, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 and also from interfering in the lawful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property without adopting due process of law;
c) cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned above be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
CS DJ 2432/17 2 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr. Judgment dated 27.01.2026
2. In the beginning itself, an application had been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by one Sh. Jagdish Sharma (stated to be father of the plaintiff) for his impleadment as a party to the suit. The said application was allowed by the Ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated 10.10.2018. An amended memo of parties accordingly was filed arraying Sh. Jagdish Sharma as defendant No. 2.
3. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, in brief, are as under:-
(a) That the plaintiff is the owner and in occupation of property bearing No. B-1739, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 consisting of ground floor, first, second and third floor with roof rights (hereinafter called the 'suit property') by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing registration No. 1218, in Book No.1, Volume No.2141, pages 92 to 97 registered on 13.03.2007.
(b) That the plaintiff, due to financial difficulties, was in need of a loan and accordingly approached defendant No. 1 in the month of June 2016. Defendant No. 1 assured the plaintiff that he would arrange a loan from a nationalized bank. Defendant No. 1 further informed the plaintiff that, for arranging the said loan, he would require a photocopy of the sale deed in respect of a property standing in the name of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff would also be required to execute certain documents for the purpose of obtaining loan sanction from the bank.
(c) That it is pertinent to mention herein that the plaintiff is only a 10th class pass and is not conversant with the technicalities of the documents required to be executed for obtaining a bank loan. Accordingly, the CS DJ 2432/17 3 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 plaintiff believed the representations made by defendant No. 1 and agreed to execute the documents as required for securing the loan from the bank.
(d) That defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiff that he was required to execute a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1, and that thereafter defendant No. 1 would be able to arrange and sanction the loan from a nationalized bank and would disburse the loan amount to the plaintiff. Believing the said representations, the plaintiff accompanied defendant No. 1 to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, for execution of the said document, i.e., the mortgage deed, as advised by defendant No. 1.
(e) That on 10.06.2016, defendant No. 1 accompanied the plaintiff to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, where certain documents were prepared and executed on the said date and were duly registered at the instance of defendant No. 1. However, neither a copy of the said documents was supplied to the plaintiff nor were the contents and particulars thereof explained to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 assured the plaintiff that he would arrange the loan amount from the bank within one month.
(f) That thereafter, the plaintiff made several requests and repeatedly approached defendant No. 1 for disbursement of the loan amount; however, defendant No. 1 kept delaying the same on one pretext or another, stating that the loan had not yet been sanctioned by the bank and that it would take some more time.
CS DJ 2432/17 4 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr. Judgment dated 27.01.2026
(g) That to the great surprise of the plaintiff, in the month of June 2017, a local property dealer of the area started visiting the suit property along with prospective buyers. Upon enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the suit property was being offered for sale at the instance and instructions of defendant No. 1, who was representing himself as the lawful owner of the suit property. The plaintiff strongly objected to the same and informed the said property dealer that defendant No. 1 was not the lawful owner, that the plaintiff himself was the lawful owner and in possession of the suit property, and that the suit property was not for sale.
(h) That thereafter, the plaintiff made enquiries from the Office of the Sub-
Registrar and applied for a certified copy of the document executed on 10.06.2016. To the shock and dismay of the plaintiff, upon receiving the certified copy on 21.06.2017, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1, under the guise of a mortgage deed, had in fact got executed a regular sale deed in his own favour on 10.06.2016. The said sale deed was registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, vide Registration No. 5320, in Book No. 1, Volume No. 6246, on pages 55 to 61.
(i) That the plaintiff never consented to the execution of the aforesaid sale deed and never intended to sell the suit property to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had only executed certain documents in favour of defendant No. 1, believing the same to be a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property, solely for the purpose of arranging a loan from a CS DJ 2432/17 5 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 nationalized bank. The acts of defendant No. 1 in fraudulently getting a sale deed executed in his favour are illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, and void ab initio. It is pertinent to mention herein that the plaintiff has also lodged a complaint against defendant No. 1 regarding the said fraudulent sale deed and acts of cheating with Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
(j) That it is pertinent to mention herein that the plaintiff has not received even a single penny towards the alleged sale consideration from defendant No. 1. The details of the cheque(s) mentioned in the sale deed as having been issued by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff towards consideration are false and fictitious, and no such amount was ever paid or received. Accordingly, the alleged sale deed in question is illegal, sham, and void, as no sale consideration whatsoever was paid by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff.
(k) That since the plaintiff never executed the alleged sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1 at any point of time and, moreover, never handed over vacant or physical possession of the suit property to defendant No. 1, and the plaintiff continues to be in possession thereof till date, the alleged sale deed dated 10.06.2016, purportedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and registered vide Registration No. 5320 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 6246, on pages 55 to 61, is illegal, void, and liable to be declared null and void by a decree of declaration.
CS DJ 2432/17 6 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr. Judgment dated 27.01.2026
(l) That the plaintiff apprehends that defendant No. 1, under the garb of the alleged sale deed, may dispose of the suit property in favour of some third party or create third-party interest therein, as local property dealers have been regularly visiting the suit property along with prospective buyers since June 2017. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 is liable to be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from selling, transferring, alienating, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property and from interfering with or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit premises.
(m) Hence, the present suit.
4. Upon receipt of plaint, summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendant No. 1 vide order dated 17.07.2017, however, the defendant No. 1 could not be served through the ordinary manner despite repeated attempts and hence, the same were directed vide order dated 20.11.2018 to be served upon the defendant No. 1 by way of publication in Newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara". Summons were duly served upon the defendant No. 1 by way of publication in newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara" dated 25.11.2018. Since the defendant No. 1 has failed to appear despite service, the defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.03.2019. Subsequently, defendant No. 2 also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2019.
5. The matter was then posted for the ex-parte plaintiff's evidence. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined five witnesses viz. PW1 Sh. Jagdeep Sharma (plaintiff), PW2 Ms. Sangeeta (Head Constable PS- Sarai Rohilla, Delhi), PW3 Sh. Saifuddin (DCD, Sub Registrar Office, Kashmere Gate, Delhi), PW4 Sh.
CS DJ 2432/17 7 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr. Judgment dated 27.01.2026
Sandeep Kumar (Asst. Manager, the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Bharat Nagar Branch), and PW5 Sh. Ravi Kant (Junior Associates, State Bank of India, Shastri Nagar Branch, New Delhi).
6. During the examination-in-chief, PW1 Sh. Jagdeep Sharma had deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith the following documents:-
(i) Mark A: Copy of Sale Deed dated 10.06.2016
(ii) Mark B: Copy of Site plan
(iii) Ex.PW1/3: Original Sale Deed dated 13.03.2007
(iv) Ex.PW1/4: Original Site Plan
(v) Ex.PW1/5: Copy of Complaint dated 04.07.2017
(vi) Ex.PW1/6: Two photographs
7. Ms. Sangeeta, Head Constable, PS- Sarai Rohilla, Delhi has been examined as PW2. She deposed to the effect that records w.e.f dated 31.12.2008 to 31.12.2017 including complaint dated 04.07.2017 of Sh. Jagdeep Sharma (already exhibited as Ex.PW1/5) have already been destroyed in police record vide destruction order No. 5746-5749/HAR/North District Dated 22.04.2022. A Photocopy of destruction order was exhibited as Ex.P1.
8. Sh. Saifuddin, DCD, Sub Registrar Office, Kashmere Gate, Delhi has been examined as PW3. He has brought the summoned i.e. original Sale deed dated 13.03.2007 registered in Book No. I, Vol. No. 2,141 vide registration number 1,218 on page No. 90 to 97 registered on 13.03.2007 in the name of Sh. Master Jagdeep Sharma executed by Sh. Jagdish Sharma. The photocopy of the same was exhibited as Ex P2 (OSR). He has also brought the summoned record i.e record of original CS DJ 2432/17 8 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 Sale deed dated 10.06.2016 registered in Book No. I, Vol. No. 6,246 vide registration No. 5,320 on page no. 55 to 61 registered on 10.06.2016 in the name of Sh. Rahul Chaudhary executed by Sh. Jagdeep Sharma. The photocopy of the same was exhibited as Ex P3 (OSR).
9. Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Assistant Manager, the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Bharat Nagar Branch has been examined as PW4. He has brought the relevant bank statement pertaining to the year 2016 to 14.03.2023 of saving Bank Account No. 016005005692 in the name of Sh. Jagdeep Sharma S/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma. Bank account opening form vide dated 16.03.2007 was exhibited as PW4/1 and the bank statements was exhibited as PW4/2. He has also brought the relevant bank statement pertaining to the year 2016 to 14.03.2023 of saving Bank Account No. 016005001980 in the name of Sh. Jagdish Sharma S/o Late Sh. Shyam Lal Sharma. Bank account opening form vide dated 29.01.2021 was exhibited as PW4/3 and the bank statement was exhibited as PW4/4. PW4 deposed to the effect that no such transaction of Rs. 18,75,000 had been made through cash or through Cheques in installments drawn on Syndicate Bank, Delhi as mentioned in the sale deed.
10. Sh. Ravi Kant, Junior Associates, State Bank of India, Shastri Nagar Branch, New Delhi has been examined as PW5. He has brought the relevant bank statement pertaining to the year 2016 to 15.03.2023 of saving Bank Account No. 31798548210 in the name of Sh. Jagdeep Sharma S/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma. Bank account opening form KYC vide dated 22.06.2011 was exhibited as PW5/1, KYC form was exhibited as PW5/2 and the bank statements which was exhibited as PW5/3. PW5 deposed to the effect that no such transaction of Rs. 18,75000 had been made through cash or CS DJ 2432/17 9 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 through Cheques in installments drawn on Syndicate Bank, Delhi as mentioned in the sale deed.
11. Witnesses PW1 to PW5 were not cross examined by the defendants as the defendants had already been proceeded ex-parte. Hence, on the submissions of Ld. counsel for the plaintiff, ex-parte PE was finally closed vide order dated 16.03.2023 and suit was posted for ex-parte final arguments.
12. Ex-parte final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of the plaintiff whereas, none has come forward on behalf of the defendants to address final arguments despite opportunity.
13. At the outset, it may be noted that the plaintiff is asking for declaring the sale deed executed by him in favour of the defendant No. 1 dated 10.06.2016 (registered on 10.06.2016) as null and void.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision rendered in Hussain Ahmad Choudhury & Ors. V/s Habibur Rahman (dead) through LRs and Ors. (passed on 23.04.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 5470 of 2025) quoted a decision rendered in Vellayya Konar (Died) & Anr. V/s Ramaswami Konar & Anr., reported in 1939 SCC OnLine Mad
149. I am referring para 33 of Hussain Ahmad Choudhury Supra;
"33. In fact, it is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or to a decree to ask for its cancellation. This is clearly explained by Wadsworth, J., in the decision rendered in Vellayya Konar (Died) & Anr. v. Ramaswami Konar & Anr., reported in 1939 SCC OnLine Mad 149, thus:
"When, the plaintiff seeks to establish a title in himself and cannot establish that title without removing an insuperable CS DJ 2432/17 10 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 obstruction such as a decree to which he has been a party or a deed to which he has been a party, then quite clearly he must get that decree or deed cancelled or declared void 'in toto', and his suit is in substance a suit for the cancellation of the decree or deed even though it be framed as a suit for declaration. But when he is seeking to establish a title and finds himself threatened by a decree or a transaction between third parties, he is not in a position to get that decree or that deed cancelled 'in toto'. That is a thing which can only be done by parties to the decree or deed or their representatives. His proper remedy therefore in order to clear the way with a view to establish his title, is to get a declaration that the decree or deed is invalid so far as he himself is concerned and he must therefore sue for such a declaration and not for the cancellation of the decree or deed."
(Emphasis supplied)"
15. In the present case, though in form the suit is for declaration for declaring the subject document/ Sale Deed as null and void, such a declaration is prayed for by a party to that document being the plaintiff. Accordingly since a party to a document is seeking his cancellation, therefore, as per the ratio in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh V/s Randhir Singh and others, (2010) 12 SCC 112, the suit for cancellation of the document will have to be as per the consideration as mentioned in the document. The plaintiff has admittedly fixed court fee as per the consideration mentioned in the document CS DJ 2432/17 11 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 and the only error of the plaintiff is that he has called the suit as a suit for declaration to declare the document as null and void instead of the suit being titled as one for cancellation of the document/ Sale Deed. However, it is settled law that the form/heading of the suit is not material and it is the substance which has to be seen, and when we see the substance, it is clear that the suit is for cancellation of the document/ Sale Deed and suit has been correctly valued by paying the ad valorem court fee on the consideration as stated in the document. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the valuation of the suit as fixed by the plaintiff which is actually seeking a relief of cancellation of the document/ Sale Deed though concluded in declaratory form (relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in C. R. P. No. 129/2014 titled as Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. Sheela Devi & Ors on 02.09.2014).
16. Here, at this point, it is necessary to note that the plaintiff is claiming himself owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 13.03.2007 bearing registration No. 1218, in Book No. 1, Volume No.2141, pages 92 to 97 registered on 13.03.2007 (Ex.PW1/3). PW3 has proved the fact of registration of the sale deed dated 13.03.2007 in the name of Sh. Master Jagdeep Sharma (plaintiff) executed by Sh. Jagdish Sharma (defendant No. 2).
17. As already noted, on an application of the father of the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Sh. Jagdish Sharma was impleaded as defendant No. 2. However, the defendant No. 2 has failed to file any written statement CS DJ 2432/17 12 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 controverting the case of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2019.
18. The plaintiff seeks cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.06.2016 (Ex.P3), registered in favour of the defendant, as the same is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, and absence of consideration. The plaintiff, being only a 10th-class pass and having no sufficient knowledge of legal documentation, was unaware of the true nature of the document executed for the purpose of availing a loan. The plaintiff executed the said document in respect of the suit property under the bona fide and mistaken belief that it was a mortgage deed, intended solely to facilitate a loan from a nationalized bank. The defendant, acting with dishonest intention, deliberately misrepresented the nature of the document and fraudulently procured the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff categorically states that no alleged sale consideration whatsoever was paid by the defendant, thereby rendering the alleged sale sham, void, and unenforceable in the eyes of law.
19. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 in support of his case. His testimony remained unrebutted as defendants, particularly the defendant No. 1, failed to cross-examine PW1.
20. In Bismillah V/s Janeshwar Prasad; (1990) 1 SCC 207, the question that came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for cancelling Sale Deeds respecting agricultural lands governed by U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. In the case, the case that is put forth was that she, being pardanashin lady on the representation of respondents 1 to 3 appointed them as her agents CS DJ 2432/17 13 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 to manage the property. The said document was in the language of Hindi, not known to her but later discovered to be a sale deed. Various questions were raised including questions of jurisdiction. In paragraphs 12 to 16 of the Judgment, their Lordships considered this question and held thus;
12. The common law defence of non est factum to actions on specialities in its origin was available where an illiterate person, to whom the contents of a deed had been wrongly read, executed it under a mistake as to its nature and contents, he could say that it was not his deed at all. In its modern application, the doctrine has been extended to cases other than those of illiteracy and to other contracts in writing. In most of the cases in which this defence was pleaded the mistake was induced by fraud, but that was not, perhaps, a necessary factor, as the transaction is "invalid not merely on the ground of fraud, where fraud exists, but on the ground that the mind of the signor did not accompany the signature, in other words, that he never intended to sign, and therefore, in contemplation of law never did sign, the contract to which his name is appended."
13. Authorities drew a distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. It was held that the defence was available only if the mistake was as to the very nature or character of the transaction.
14. In Foster v. Mackinnon, Mackinnon, the defendant was induced to endorse a bill of exchange on the false representation that it was a guarantee similar to one he had signed on a previous occasion. He was held not liable when sued even by an innocent endorsee of the bill. Byles, J. said:
CS DJ 2432/17 14 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr. Judgment dated 27.01.2026
"... The defendant never intended to sign that contract or any such contract. He never intended to put his name to any instrument that then was or thereafter might become negotiable. He was deceived, not merely as to the legal effect, but as to the 'actual contents' of the instruments."
15. This decision was referred to with approval by this Court in Ningawwa v. Byrappa, AIR 1968 SC 956. It was observed (SCR pp. 800-01) "It is well established that a contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void, but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the transaction is valid, so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter which they may enforce against the party defrauded."
This would be a voidable transaction. But the position was held to be different if the fraud or misrepresentation related to the character of the document. This Court held : (SCR p. 801) "The legal position will be different if there is a fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the document but as to its character. The authorities make a clear distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. With reference to the former, it has been held that the transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely voidable." However the House of Lords in Sauders v. Anglia Building Society, (1970) 3 All ER 961 reviewed the law and held that the essential features of the CS DJ 2432/17 15 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 doctrine, as expressed by Byles, J. in Foster v. Mackinnon, had been correctly stated. Lord Raid, however, observed : (AC headnote at p. 1005) "The plea of non est factum could not be available to anyone who signed without taking the trouble to find out at least the general effect of the document. Nor could it be available to a person whose mistake was really a mistake as to the legal effect of the document. There must be a radical or fundamental difference between what he signed and what he thought he was signing."
16. However the distinction based on the character of the document and the contents of the document was considered unsatisfactory. The distinction based on the character and contents of a document is not without its difficulties in its practical application; for, in conceivable cases the 'character' of the document may itself depend on its contents. The difficulty is to be resolved on a case by case basis on the facts of each case and not by appealing to any principle of general validity applicable to all cases. Chitty on Contracts ("General Principles" 25th edn, para 343, page 194) has this observation to make on Sauders decision:
"...... It was stressed that the defence of non est factum was not lightly to be allowed where a person of full age and capacity had signed a written document embodying contractual terms. But it was nevertheless held that in exceptional circumstances the plea was available so long as the person signing the document had made a fundamental mistake as to the character or effect of the document. Their Lordships appear to have concentrated on the disparity between the effect of the document actually signed, and the document as it was believed to be (rather than on the nature of the mistake) stressing that CS DJ 2432/17 16 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 the disparity must be "radical", "essential", "fundamental", or "very substantial".
In the instance case, prima facie appellant seems to proceed on the premises that she cannot ignore the sales but that the sales require to be set aside before she is entitled to possession and other consequential reliefs." (Underlined by me)
21. Finally, their Lordships approved the passage of Chitty on Contracts and the applicability of the principle of non est factum was made applicable only to those documents where the disparity is a radical, essential, fundamental and very substantial.
22. Dularia Devi V/s Janardan Singh; 1990 (Supp) SCC 216, is also a case concerning U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 where their lordships considered whether such a document is void or voidable. In that case, the plaintiff wanted to execute a gift deed in favour of her daughter. But without her knowledge, two documents came to be executed. One gift deed and other is sale deed in favour of some of the defendants. Their Lordships held that such a transaction is void since there is difference between what she intended to sign and what she did sign. In paragraphs 3 to 7, their Lordships held thus;
"3. The facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the documents in question came to be executed in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. The appellant, however, contends that since it was a case of the document having been vitiated by fraud, the transaction was voidable, but not void, and therefore the suit to set aside the sale was rightly instituted by her and the bar of Section 49 was not attracted. The appellant contends that the suit is CS DJ 2432/17 17 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 perfectly maintainable and the High Court was wrong in holding to the contrary.
4. Mr. Satish Chandra, appearing for the respondents, rightly, in our view., submits that two principles enunciated by this Court in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Harain Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 535 and Ningawwa v. Byrappa, AIR 1968 SC 956 squarely apply to the facts of this case and the document in question evidenced a void transaction, and not a mere voidable transaction, and no suit was, therefore, maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 49 of the Act.
5. In Gorakh Nath Dube, this Court held that the object of the relevant provision of the Act was to remove from the jurisdiction of any civil court or revenue court all disputes which could be decided by the competent authority under the Act during the consolidation proceedings. Questions relating to the validity of a sale deed or a gift deed and the like had to be examined in proceedings before the statutory authorities. The Court, however, drew a distinction between void and voidable documents and said a voidable document was one which remained in force until set aside, and such a document could be set aside only by a competent civil court, and a suit for that purpose would, therefore, be maintainable. On the other hand, a claim that a transaction was void was a matter which could be adjudicated upon by the consolidation courts. This is what this Court stated : (SCC p. 538, para 5) "We think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid or that it can be disregarded by any court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. An alienation made in excess CS DJ 2432/17 18 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 of power to transfer would be, to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in land which are the subject matter of consolidation proceedings. The existence and quantum of rights claimed or denied will have to be declared by the consolidation authorities which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction, by the necessary implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and interests in land, to declare such documents effective or ineffective, but, where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a court having the power to cancel it. In the case before us, the plaintiff's claim is that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid, inoperative, and void. Such a claim could be adjudicated upon by consolidation courts."
6. In Ningawwa v. Byrappa, this Court referred to the well established principle that a contract or other transaction induced or tendered by fraud is not void, but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded. The transaction remains valid until it was avoid. This Court then said : (SCR p.
801) "The legal position will be different if there is a fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the document but as to its character. The authorities make a clear distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. With CS DJ 2432/17 19 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 reference to the former, it has been held that the transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely voidable. In Foster v. Mackinon, the action was by the endorsee of a bill of exchange. The defendant pleaded that he endorsed the bill on a fraudulent representation by the acceptor that he was signing a guarantee. In holding that such a plea was admissible, the court observed: It (signature) is invalid not merely on the ground of fraud, where fraud exists, but on the ground that the mind of the sign did not accompany the signature; in other words, that he never intended to sign, and therefore in contemplation of law never did sign, the contract to which his name is appended... The defendant never intended to sign that contract or any such contract. He never intended to put his name to any instrument that then was or thereafter might become negotiable. He was deceived, not merely as to the legal effect, but as to the 'actual contents' of the instrument."
7. Form the facts narrated above, about which, as stated earlier, there is no dispute, it is clear that this is a case where the plaintiff appellant was totally ignorant of the mischief played upon her. She honestly believed that the instrument which she executed and got registered was a gift deed in favour of her daughter. She believed that the thumb impressions taken from her were in respect of that single document. She did not know that she executed two documents, one of which alone was the gift deed, but the other was a sale of the property in favour of all the defendants. This was, therefore, a case of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document executed by her and not merely as to its contents or as to its legal effect. The plaintiff appellant never intended to sign what she did sign. She never CS DJ 2432/17 20 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 intended to enter into the contract to which she unknowingly became a party. Her mind did not accompany her thump impressions. This is a case that falls within the principle enunciated in Ningawwa v. Byrappa and it was, therefore, a totally void transaction. Accordingly, as stated in gorakh Nath Dube, the suit is not maintainable by reason of the bar contained in the Act."
(Underlined by me)
23. In the considered view of this Court, the plaintiff, through his unrebutted testimony, has successfully established that the document in question, i.e., the sale deed dated 10.06.2016 (Ex.P3), does not reflect his true intention. The plaintiff intended to execute only a mortgage deed for the limited purpose of availing a loan from a nationalized bank. The evidence on record further establishes that the defendant No. 1, with dishonest intent, misrepresented the nature of the document and fraudulently induced the plaintiff to execute the sale deed.
24. The view taken by this Court is further fortified by the fact that the original title document pertaining to the suit property, namely the registered sale deed dated 13.03.2007 (Ex.PW1/3), has continued to remain in the possession of the plaintiff. Had the property been intended to be sold to defendant No. 1, there would have been no justification for the original title documents remaining with the plaintiff. The possession of the suit property has also not been transferred to the defendant No. 1.
25. Fraud on the part of defendant No. 1 is also evident from the recitals in the sale deed dated 10.06.2016 (Ex.P3), which mention payment of a major portion of the sale consideration to the plaintiff through cheques, without CS DJ 2432/17 21 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 specifying the beneficiary of such cheques. The plaintiff has unequivocally stated on oath that no such consideration was ever received. The testimony of PW4 and PW5, bank witnesses examined by the plaintiff, conclusively establishes that no transaction of Rs. 18,75,000, whether in cash or by cheque drawn on Syndicate Bank, Delhi, ever took place, thereby rendering the recital regarding payment of consideration false and misleading.
26. At this juncture, it will be relevant to take note of the scope of Section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) which specifically bars letting in oral evidence through which the terms of a contract or disposition of property is attempted to be contradicted, varied etc.
27. In the present case, the plaintiff's case is that the defendant No. 1 had misrepresented to him as if, the document is executed only towards the loan and he never intended to execute any sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1. The Legislature has prevented oral evidence being adduced for the purpose of varying a contract as between the parties to the contract. This bar will apply only if the parties are attempting to rely upon the document and contradict the terms of the document. The provision itself gives six exceptions, where this bar imposed under Section 95 of the Act, will not apply. The first exception which is provided as the first Proviso to Section 95 of the Act deals with evidence that can be let in to show that the contract itself is void or voidable or that it is vitiated on the ground of fraud, duress etc. CS DJ 2432/17 22 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026
28. From the foregoing discussion, this Court concludes that the sale deed dated 10.06.2016 (Ex.P3) is liable to be cancelled, as the same stands vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, and absence of consideration.
RELIEF
29. In view of my findings, the plaintiff is entitled for following relief(s);
(a) Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for cancellation of Sale deed dated 10.06.2016 registered in Book No. I, Vol. No. 6,246 vide registration No. 5,320 on page no. 55 to 61 registered on 10.06.2016 in the name of Sh. Rahul Chaudhary executed by Sh. Jagdeep Sharma (Ex.P3).
(b) Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for permanent injunction thereby the defendants, their agents, servants, nominees, etc. are restrained from creating third party interest in respect of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. B-1739, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052, and also from interfering in the lawful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property without adopting due process of law.
(c) Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.
30. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
31. A copy of decree alongwith copy of Sale deed dated 10.06.2016 registered in Book No. I, Vol. No. 6,246 vide registration No. 5,320 on page no. 55 to 61 registered on 10.06.2016 in the name of Sh. Rahul Chaudhary executed by Sh. Jagdeep Sharma (Ex.P3) be sent to the Office of Sub Registrar Office, Kashmere CS DJ 2432/17 23 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026 Gate, Delhi for compliance in terms of Section 31 (2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Announced in the open court on this 27th day of January, 2026. This Judgment consists of 24 number of signed pages.
(Abhishek Srivastava) District Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.01.27 16:53:18 +0530 CS DJ 2432/17 24 of 24 Jagdeep Sharma Vs. Rahul Chaudhary & Anr.
Judgment dated 27.01.2026